Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Your Rights Online

Music Industry Sues Irish Government For Piracy 341

Posted by samzenpus
from the going-for-the-gold dept.
bs0d3 writes "The music industry has initiated a lawsuit against the Irish government for not having blocking laws on the books; on the theory that if blocking laws were in place then filesharing would go away. On Tuesday the music industry issued a plenary summons against the Irish government which is the first step towards making this litigation possible. This all began in October 2010 (EMI v. UPC), when an Irish judge ruled that Irish law did not permit an order to be made against an ISP requiring blocking of websites. Recently several ISPs across the European Union have been ordered by courts to block thepiratebay.org through legal maneuvers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Music Industry Sues Irish Government For Piracy

Comments Filter:
  • by Kenja (541830) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:30AM (#38671032)
    The Irish, being a compliant group, will no doubt capitulate without a fight.
  • LOL (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stanlyb (1839382) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:30AM (#38671034)
    I wonder what is next? Maybe they will put the government in jail? Or as they represent the irish people, the whole nation should go to jail? ARE THESE GUYS CRAZY?
    • Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:38AM (#38671060)

      ARE THESE GUYS CRAZY?

      They're filthy rich and entitled and want to be more of both.

    • Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)

      by flaming error (1041742) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:43AM (#38671088) Journal

      > I wonder what is next?
      After suing their customers, suing a sovereign country was the next logical business move. After Ireland, they will sue the United Nations, only to learn they have less money than Ireland. So then they'll sue Portugal and Greece. Then God.

      Then they'll come back to Earth and sue their distribution chain, then their singers and songwriters, and finally, in a final act of desperate cannibalism, they'll finally sue the Master of all Piracy - Weird Al.

      • by EdZ (755139)
        Eventually, they'll have to start suing each other for having the temerity to even consider operating in the same market.
      • Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)

        by number6x (626555) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @08:19AM (#38672716)

        Each songwriter who signed copyright over to the music company has a copy of the original song in their memory! How can these illegal copies be allowed without proper licensing and fees?

        Those songwriters better pay up, or get in line for a lobotomy.

    • Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wisty (1335733) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:50AM (#38671108)

      I'd like to know what else you can sue the government for. If they had the death penalty for petty theft, I bet you'd see a lot less theft. Can drug addicts sue the government for not imprisoning their dealers? Can convicted dealers sue because the government didn't imprison their clients? There's endless fun to be had!

      • Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)

        by niftydude (1745144) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @01:15AM (#38671178)
        Well I know cigarette companies have been threatening to sue the Australian government because the government wants to force cigarettes to be sold in plain paper packaged boxes. It's actually been pretty interesting to follow.

        I could probably make a witty comment about the similarities between music labels and cigarette corporations, but everyone knows that they are both scum, so I won't bother.
        • we do this in our country (plain packaging for cigarettes). its a slippery slope, now you're not even allowed to show clients the range of cigarettes they want to purchase.. outright banning isn't too far off IMO.

          3 Australia, the nanny state. (at least nanny told us not to waste all our money on a dodgy market, so although we have problems they aren't anything compared to Americas)

          • by zoloto (586738)
            I find it funny you're against selling a poison which is deliberately sold to be ingested or inhaled for the general public to consume.
        • Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Rennt (582550) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @01:36AM (#38671228)
          I'm no friend of the tobacco lobby, but the two things are like chalk and cheese. The tobacco companies are suing because of legislation that limits freedoms. They feel they are being harmed unfairly. The music industry is suing because legislation that limits freedoms does not exist. They feel that everybody else are not being harmed unfairly enough!
          • Well if the tobacco lobby hadn't treated their product with ammonia specifically for the purpose of making their products more addictive, then I'd feel they had a leg to stand on.

            Secretly attempting to addict people to your product is one of the most insidious attacks on freedom that there is.
      • Re:LOL (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @07:48AM (#38672534) Homepage Journal

        Of course, you can sue a ham sandwich for being a ham sandwich. Dunno if you'll win - but that never stopped the "music" biz.

        If you can sue the government for not having a law, you can sue for anything. That's pure absurdity. If you can win, precisely because there is no law making something illegal, you can win anything.

        You could probably even win a suit against the government for not ruling you win.

        Obviously any legal system must have either immediate decisions preventing the state from spending more than a second dismissing truly absurd attempts like this one. Better yet, it should allow the time waste, and simply decide in court to not just dismiss the suit, but also permanently ban any lawyer who brought the stupendously frivolous case, and charge damages in the amount of the cost to the government, plus punitive damages to inhibit truly rich fools from just buying up the government's time.

        Then we could destroy the "music" biz, and hordes of frivolous lawyers, at once. Finally some good from the modern "music" industry.

    • Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mjwx (966435) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:52AM (#38671114)

      ARE THESE GUYS CRAZY?

      If there was any doubt before now, it has been removed.

      If they weren't completely batshit insane they would have sued a government with some money.

  • Get in line... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hawks5999 (588198) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:30AM (#38671036)
    The Irish government is so broke, what is the MAFIAA going get? Ireland is judgement proof.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      >> what is the MAFIAA going get?
      Why, the Irish people, of course.

      Suing customers costs money. The Irish cost nothing.

      • by Mysteray (713473)

        >> what is the MAFIAA going get?
        Why, the Irish people, of course.

        Of course, this solution has been proposed before [gutenberg.org]:

        I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.

    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @02:09AM (#38671356)
      Judge: To the plaintiff, the RIAA, I award 10 billion dollars.
      Ireland: Now see here laddie, we ain't got that type of money now.
      Judge: Hmm... What DO you have?
      Ireland: Well, we have good old Irish luck! And we have this four-leaf clover that's always brought us... well financial ruin when you get down to it.
      Judge: I hear you have good whiskey...
      Ireland: WE'LL KILL YE WHERE YE STAND BY GOD!!!
      Judge: OKAY, calm down. What else?
      Ireland: We have a few bands I suppose we could part with. The Cranberries! They're Irish! They can have the Cranberries. Remember "Zombie?"
      Judge: I'm trying not to... zo-hom-bie,zo-hom-bie,... damnit! Well, not good enough. Who else?
      Ireland: ...Sinéad O'Connor?
      Judge: Oh come on!
      Ireland: Who do ye suggest?
      Judge: I think you know.
      Ireland: Oh... God no... you couldn't be talking about
      Judge: Yes. U2.
      Ireland: (starts crying) No! Not Bono! You can take the Edge and... that other guy, but leave Bono!
      • Re:Get in line... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12, 2012 @03:48AM (#38671654)

        Sorry, U2 isn't an option - they've already moved their publishing business to the Netherlands, after the Irish government capped the tax exemption on artists at a mere €250,000.

        • Re:Get in line... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dargaud (518470) <slashdot2NO@SPAMgdargaud.net> on Thursday January 12, 2012 @06:56AM (#38672332) Homepage

          Sorry, U2 isn't an option - they've already moved their publishing business to the Netherlands, after the Irish government capped the tax exemption on artists at a mere €250,000.

          Err, I don't know the full story, but is there a tax exemption on programmers ? Potato growers ? Brewers ? Slutty fat chicks ? WTF, does being an 'artist' make you above the tax code now ?!? That's a hell of a superpower.
          That cap seems absolutely fine to me. Even at 25000 it would be fine. Actually I think 0 is the better number.

      • by airfoobar (1853132) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @04:43AM (#38671884)
        MAFIAA: They should pay damages for our fictional 70 trillion lost sales from piracy!
        Judge: Ok, you can have the fictional pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by blind biker (1066130)

        Fuck Bono, he's probably behind this shit. He was whining about pirates taking "his" money since several years now.

    • by TaoPhoenix (980487) <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Thursday January 12, 2012 @07:18AM (#38672402) Journal

      Am I the only one thinking that they don't want money, they want precedent?

      Really, can a corporation really sue a government for not passing a law and win??!

      That's not even wink&nod bribery, that's outright treason!

  • immunity? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I support sovereign immunity is going to an issue pretty quickly.

  • Hey, IRA: (Score:5, Funny)

    by j35ter (895427) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:37AM (#38671058)
    Do good for your people; time to blow up a few lawyers...
    • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @01:35AM (#38671222)

      time for the irish chapter, Anon O'Mous to step up.

  • by SYSS Mouse (694626) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:38AM (#38671066) Homepage

    This is the case of using judicial mean to "force" changes to the law itself, which is in the legislative area.

    • by lordholm (649770) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @03:28AM (#38671590) Homepage

      I thought so to, but it turns out (if you read the article) that the suit is about that Ireland has not implemented certain items in Union legislation. Thus, a court proceeding for Ireland is entirely appropriate, especially since Union law have precedence. The court is then asked to look at whether Irish law is compliant with Union law, so the court cannot force the state to make new laws, they can however force the state to follow Union law.

      For the non-european who have no idea about how it works (this is a simplified version): EU legislation can be seen as federal law, but most of the legislation (known as directives), are actually laws about that the states should make laws fulfilling a certain set of requirements. If a state does not implement "federal" directives in local legislation within the directive's implementation period, those individuals and companies that suffer some kind of damage that they would not have suffered if the law was implemented, have the right to sue the state for non compliance. This is a normal procedure; try to solve it locally at first, the next step is to take it up with the Union so they can start infringement procedures against the state. Normally, the courts would in this case ask for union level courts for an opinion of the compatibility between state and union law.

  • Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jesseck (942036) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:39AM (#38671068)
    So, what happened? I imagine this is a precursor to some sort of "treaty" or "trade agreement" with the US (since corporations run the country) and Ireland that will establish these "missing" laws.
  • by Bob9113 (14996) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:41AM (#38671074) Homepage

    Gee, government, not fondling the MAFIAA's nuts enough, so they hit you. Now, are you going to say "I walked into a door" and let them do it again, or are you going to man up?

    You know what happens when you give a bully your lunch money? He threatens you for it the next day.

    Know what happens when you give the MAFIAA a yard? They take a mile.

    There is only one way to stop a bully. Stand up to him.

    There is only one way to stop the MAFIAA. Cut copyright to 50 years, and tell them if they don't back the fuck off, you're going to cut it to 20 years.

    • by j35ter (895427)

      There is only one way to stop the MAFIAA. Cut copyright to 50 years, and tell them if they don't back the fuck off, you're going to cut it to 20 years.

      No, replace copyright with something else. But, as greedy lawyers have an active hand in creating laws, I think this wont happen :(

    • I'd say cut it to 5 years after they beg for 50 years.
    • by mjwx (966435) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @01:10AM (#38671166)

      There is only one way to stop the MAFIAA. Cut copyright to 50 years, and tell them if they don't back the fuck off, you're going to cut it to 20 years.

      That wont stop them, at best that will only slow them down. They'll happily keep suing even if copyright is cut to 3 months. Long copyrights aren't to protect older works, they are designed to protect newer works from having to compete with older works.

      The best solution is to change copyright so that the cartels cant own copyrights rather they can be contracted for distribution by the actual content creators, ergo, cant sue over something they cant own. Then jailing any media exec who even thinks of getting out of line for life + 70 years.

    • by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @01:20AM (#38671192) Homepage Journal

      How about just going back to the original length? 7 years.

      Hell, we can even toss in the additional 7 year extension that you got if you applied, when that extension was added on at a later date.

      If it was enough time for books being carted on horsedrawn wagons to a largely illiterate population to make money, it's enough time for your shit song and dumb assed movie to make money.

      • by tirefire (724526) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @06:10AM (#38672184)

        If it was enough time for books being carted on horsedrawn wagons to a largely illiterate population to make money, it's enough time for your shit song and dumb assed movie to make money.

        I don't think that 18th century Americans were largely illiterate. Thomas Paine's Common Sense pamphlet (published in 1776) sold 600,000 copies to a population of 3,000,000 people - that's 1 copy for every 5 people. Of those 3,000,000 people, 1 in 5 were slaves and 1 in 2 were indentured servants. Oh sure, a lot of people probably bought several copies of it and performed the colonial equivalent of sticking it under strangers' windshield wipers. But still, I think that a national ratio of 1:5 for a non-religious printed publication is impressive, especially if hardly anybody could have even read it at the time.

        What would be the equivalent of Common Sense today? 61.6 million copies of something for 308 million Americans? Is there a single book, newspaper article, political manifesto, or any other publication that comes close to that today? Sure, there's probably a TV show or movie or something that almost everybody today has seen, but I'm more interested in comparing the overall interest in reading between 1776 and 2012 (especially when the reading requires the commitment of paying to read a print publication rather than checking Google News three times a day for the cost of electricity). The most widely-read publication of today, as far as I can tell, is AARP Magazine, with a circulation of 22.4 million in 2011, roughly 1/3 what Common Sense achieved over 200 years ago. Except I don't think that really counts. AARP is a periodical and it has had 50+ years to get to where it is now.

    • 50 years. PSSHAW! Here's what you tell them about their copyrights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ [youtube.com]
  • by Dan667 (564390) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:48AM (#38671102)
    music industry is using a failing business model and costing the Irish Government lots of money in lost taxes from the music industry not adapting to the current business environment.
  • by nedlohs (1335013) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @12:54AM (#38671118)

    Change the laws: copyright on music expires after 20 days. ISP have to block websites hosting infringing copies of music 3 weeks after being given written notice of the specific file/url/whatever to block. Of course once the copyright expires the block is no longer required (since it isn't infringing anymore).

    Everyone wins!

  • It's a desperate move to replentish their supply of dead babies [gutenberg.org].

  • Accelerando (Score:4, Informative)

    by mr_snarf (807002) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @01:10AM (#38671168)
    The more I read about all this stuff going on, the more and more I think of Accelerando by Charles Stross. The description in the news of these companies makes them sound like organisms trying to compete in an artificial world, with less and less connection to reality. Soon their actions will be run by programs, and will eventually become sentient :P (Book is available free online if interested, see http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/accelerando.charles_stross/ [jus.uio.no])
  • Causal Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by mandelbr0t (1015855) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @01:53AM (#38671280) Journal

    The crux of the case will lie in proving that there is a causal link between the lack of laws requiring ISPs to block websites, and the damages claimed. The precedent is Francovich v. Italy. However, given that the judge in a ruling against British Telecom forcing them to use Cleanfeed [wikipedia.org] to block access to websites like Newzbin and TPB acknowledge that tools to circumvent the system were available. And, in fact, Newzbin has released a client allowing access to their website despite the Cleanfeed block. The same software allows access to TPB. It relies on both encryption and the TOR network. Newzbin told BBC news that 93.5% of UK users have downloaded their Cleanfeed circumvention software. This flies in the face of the judge's comment that "Even assuming that they all have the ability to acquire [the means to circumvent Cleanfeed], it does not follow that they will all wish to expend the time and effort required."

    93.5% of UK Newzbin users may not be "all" people in the UK who want to use file sharing networks, but it certainly means that establishing the causal link between lack of ISP blocking remedies and damages from file sharing will be difficult. People want access to those files, and Cleanfeed has proven largely ineffective at stopping two of the main sites involved in sharing. It should also be noted that these sites are not the actual hosters of the allegedly damaging files; they are merely portals to peer-to-peer networks that have other access methods available (e.g. DHT on BitTorrent). Again, the claim that blocking these websites would prevent financial damage is rather dubious.

  • by giorgist (1208992) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @01:54AM (#38671284)
    The music industry is suing a sovereign government in a court of law because of a law that does not exist ?
    What next, sue voters for not ensuring their revenue stream ... hang on ... that is what they ARE doing ?!!?

    So in their eyes I can be guilty for not successfully electing a government that ensures their income !!!

    I am painting it every which way to try and make sense of this ...

    I wish we could outlaw lawyers but considering that they would be enforcing that law, it may end the universe H2G2 style and replace it with something more bizarre.
  • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @01:59AM (#38671310)

    So not only do they blame the pirates themselves (because their actions may or may not result in a loss of potential profit), but they blame people (in this case, the government) who don't try to stop them (because, if they did stop them, they couldn't do something that may or may not result in a loss of potential profit)? I guess everyone's to blame, then. Clearly the people didn't try hard enough to force the government to pass such laws. Sue everyone!

  • by mykos (1627575) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @02:10AM (#38671360)
    Copyright is an artificial right that has been granted by the public to encourage the creation of works, with the understanding that those works will be contributed to the public domain in a reasonable amount of time. It is a bargain between creators and the general public.

    We've lost the plot somewhere. 5-year copyright swelled to 7, 14, 28, 50, 75, 90, 120 years...

    With each increase of copyright duration, the copyright lobbies have robbed the public of that much more creative works. We, the public, have fulfilled our end of the bargain, and we have granted a monopoly to the rights holders. They taken a tool we bought them, purchased with our tax dollars and our court system, and they have turned it into a weapon of control against us.

    We have the power to take this weapon away from them any time we want--lobbyists and politicians be damned. Do not give these companies one cent. They are using what we gave them to exert ultimate control over us. Until they start giving back to the public domain, feel free to add "torrent" to any search for their creative works.
    • by Pecisk (688001) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @03:45AM (#38671640)

      I just don't understand why there is no world wide movement for requesting setting back copyright terms to 20 years? Even in UK 100 year law extention just passed. BBC article on it was wrote like PR bullshit from recording companies. That's what's happening - journalism ignores this issue (some of them willingly, some of them are not allowed to even think about it, but lots of them simply don't care, because it's "difficult" subject for beer/pizza/tv junkies to understand).

      I say - we need 20 year limit back on track. With current media consumption it is more than enough for company to regain costs, and see if it's even are ready to regain costs. Argue that everyone can squeeze enough profit from 20 year term. Copyright cartel will hard time to explain why they need 100 years.

      • I just don't understand why there is no world wide movement for requesting setting back copyright terms to 20 years?

        so you dont understand why there is no worldwide movement for correcting 'copyright issue' ?

        maybe because people dont give a shit because they are not only poor, and struggling to survive, but also undereducated and culturally deficient ? (85% of america only does with 15% of national wealth/income - 7% gulps 72% of it).

        people are fighting for survival. some are working on two jobs. some start working in high school to support their family. and no - you cannot expect everyone to overcome 'great odds'

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12, 2012 @02:31AM (#38671414)

    Strange, I didn't think there were any Irish lawyers.

    None of them can pass a bar.

  • Battle of the Book (Score:5, Interesting)

    by o'reor (581921) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @03:33AM (#38671606) Journal
    I don't think the music industry realizes that they're facing a war. And not a simple legal war, a real war with real weapons and casualties too. For, indeed:

    Many hundreds of years before the GPL was even a twinkle in Richard Stallman's eye, an Irish monk proved to be an unlikely champion of the geeky A2K notion of access to knowledge. [...] and they settled things the way they did in those days, with 3000 people getting killed in the resulting battle.

    The full article about Saint ColmCille and his fight for free access to knowledge and Copyleft is available here (PDF). [ed.ac.uk]

    (and after all, if those lawyers working for the music industry are serious about that copyright shit, why don't they join the army and fight that battle on the front line, huh ? Hand me a banana bomb, there's a cluster of them coming our way...)

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @03:59AM (#38671702)
    That's a bit like suing someone on skid row nowadays.
  • by Lost Race (681080) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @04:27AM (#38671820)

    So they say file sharing is killing the music industry. Even if they're right (and that's by no means a given) ... so what? People can still record and distribute music without any music industry. With computers and the Internet it's easy and pretty cheap. But even if somehow all musicians decided to stop recording and distributing ... again, so what? We can live without recorded music. All the money people currently spend on CDs would be spent on other entertainment instead, such as live performances.

    Copyright is a tool for the benefit of society, not a natural right of artists (or the parasites who trick them into lopsided contracts) to make money. As far as music goes, there's just no measurable benefit to society to justify any significant effort or expense on copyright enforcement.

    I say the proper response to this demand is to declare music to be outside the scope of copyright. Entertainers, learn your place and watch your step.

    • by bussdriver (620565) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @10:06AM (#38673574)

      We had music be for we had the wheel; culture existed before copyright. Besides, we have more than enough PAST music that little new is being created. This protectionist system is not adding much benefit to society.

      Nobody has a right to a job doing whatever they want to do. Industries must be allowed to die when their time has come! This isn't about car company bail outs, we still need cars. This is more like banning teleporters because it'll put the airlines out of business.

      The greed mentality is what it is always about; take everything away from you as possible and make you pay somebody who controls it. We've gone so far as to privatize ownership of WATER, including the rain and make people pay for the water collecting naturally in their own backyard- literally. It has been done and that evil thinking continues to spread; as CRAZY as that sounds the issue will come to your area someday in the future unless trends change. Privatization has always been about handing power to the politically connected so they can leverage that power into profit and it never has anything to do about helping anybody. Copyright has NOTHING (today) to do with helping the "starving" artists and everything about control.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12, 2012 @05:05AM (#38671962)

    Music is no longer a "product"; it is becoming a "service". (Streaming, downloading, etc). Music has actually been a service throughout most of human history, i.e., before recorded music you had to go where the musicians were to hear them. The "record business", starting around 1905, turned music into a product -- records, then cassette tapes, then CDs. The product is essentially "containers" for music that require a distribution infrastructure. But today we no longer need those containers and distribution costs nothing. How the "record companies" initially got so much power over the musicians is a sad story. Imagine if the people making wine bottles had control over what wines got made!

  • by Sqr(twg) (2126054) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @07:28AM (#38672450)

    EMI is also suing God, for not affixing "copying is stealing" to His commandment "thou shalt not steal". In addition to monetary compensation, they are asking that the court order God to smite thepiratebay.org.

  • Why cant.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @07:44AM (#38672514) Homepage

    A government declare war against a corporation?

    "The Irish government recognizes any employee or person affiliated with the RIAA or MPAA as an enemy of the Country and will be killed on sight. We ask the United states government to allow us to run a military operation and bomb the corporate locations of all RIAA and MPAA operations, their lawyers offices, and anyone that claims affiliation with them."

    They are terrorists just like Al-Quieda, why cant a freedom loving country declare war against them?

  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Thursday January 12, 2012 @09:18AM (#38673204)

    ... The MPAA and RIAA have sued world governments for not requiring anti-piracy shock collars on all citizens. They claim that, were anti-piracy shock collars in place, piracy would disappear and people would go back to their rightful activities - buying music and movies. Critics charge that the shock collars inhibit freedom of speech... or at least they used to until they had shock collars put on them. Now they're all for the idea. Personally, I think that anti-piracy shock collars are horrib... *BBZZZZZTTT* WONDERFUL idea!

  • by joshamania (32599) <jggramlich@noSpAM.yahoo.com> on Thursday January 12, 2012 @09:24AM (#38673264) Homepage

    AFP - Flash: MCP Records sues all citizens everywhere for not buying Justin Bieber albums.

Lo! Men have become the tool of their tools. -- Henry David Thoreau

Working...